We loooooove NUKES!

[Docta]

g'damnit! as if we hadn't alienated the rest of the world enough already.

-------------------------------------------
Rumsfeld Pushes for New Nuclear Weapons Study

Tue May 20, 6:23 PM ET

By Vicki Allen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday low-yield nuclear weapons may be useful in destroying deadly chemical and biological weapons stocks as he pressed Congress to lift a 10-year ban on research and development of smaller nuclear arms.

The Senate was debating whether to allow research on low-yield weapons with about one-third the force of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II, which Democrats said would signal the United States was pursuing new battlefield weapons and would spur an arms race.

Democrats also were challenging the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s plan to continue research on a high-yield warhead to burrow into the ground, which Rumsfeld said is needed to deter countries from burying the materials for weapons of mass destruction in deep bunkers.

Rumsfeld said the administration just wanted to study these weapons, "not to develop, not to deploy, not to use" them.

But Democrats said the measures, tucked into a $400.5 billion defense authorization bill, would make the use of such weapons conceivable, reversing decades of U.S. policy aimed at preventing nuclear warfare.

Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), a Massachusetts Democrat, said the administration's plan "jeopardizes the entire architecture of nuclear arms controls so carefully negotiated by our leaders over our lifetimes."

Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a Pentagon briefing the nuclear warheads may destroy deadly biological or chemical material that would be dispersed by conventional weapons.

For instance, Myers said, gamma rays may destroy anthrax spores and chemical compounds "and not develop that plume that conventional weapons might do that would then drift and perhaps bring others in harm's way."

STUDY OR DEVELOPMENT?

While Rumsfeld said the administration only wanted power to study new low-yield nuclear weapons, Democrats said it was pushing language that would permit their development.

Sen. Jack Reed (news, bio, voting record) said if Democrats fail to keep the ban on study of low-yield weapons, he would push an amendment to block their potential production.

"If we can limit it to research, it would be an improvement to the president's language," said Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat. After 50 years of trying to find ways to prevent nuclear warfare, he said, "Now we're really talking about using them."

Democrats said there is a misconception that so-called "mini-nukes" and the burrowing weapon would have contained effects with minimal loss of life, while they would release deadly plumes of radioactivity.

The House Armed Services Committee, writing its version of the defense authorization bill last week, passed an amendment that paves the way for research on low-yield nuclear weapons but bans any work on engineering or production of them.

The full House of Representatives was to consider the bill on Wednesday.

Study already is under way on the deep earth penetrator, or "bunker-buster," but Democrats planned to try to cut the $15.5 million the Pentagon wants to continue research.

Halting the deep earth penetrator research would tell the world "that they're wise to invest in going underground," Rumsfeld said.

[DudeMan]

If there's the potential we could make a bomb that burrows down into the ground and blows up a bunker that the next Saddam or Hitler is hiding out in, thereby ending the conflict sooner...

If there's the potential we can come up with something that could wipe out chemical and biological weapon labs & stocks...

Sounds to me like something worth researching.

Good job, Mr. Rumsfeld!

[dcXhc]

Wake up and smell the cat food, Dudeman!!

America is the Great Satan -- Anything and everything it does is inherently evil!

[Danosaur]

Dudeman what up? Could you be anymore self-preservationist? We're telling the rest of the world to unarm while we work on weapons that will blow 'em away. We are such imperialist.

[Docta]

Originally posted by DudeMan

If there's the potential we can come up with something that could wipe out chemical and biological weapon labs & stocks...


like all of those we have found in iraq eh?

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Danosaur
Dudeman what up? Could you be anymore self-preservationist? We're telling the rest of the world to unarm while we work on weapons that will blow 'em away. We are such imperialist.

Self-preservation is bad?

I know the new Leftist mantra is to claim that the U.S. is the cause of all the bad in the world, but are you truly so naive as to believe that if the U.S. disarmed, everybody else would do likewise?

Britain, China, France, India, Iran(?), Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia -- All these countries only have nuclear weapons because the U.S. does?

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by dcXhc
are you truly so naive as to believe that if the U.S. disarmed, everybody else would do likewise?
And you've hit on (an example of) the problems caused by saying you are "liberal" or "conservative". You have to ally yourself with certain causes. I'm (no doubt) liberal in my politics, and as such I see the inherent good in world-wide disarmament and the "evil" in the U.S.' refusal to do so. However, I understand that this isn't the game of "I'll give you your baseball and you give me my hat at the same time and we can trust each other" that we all played as children. If we disarm, we'll be at the mercy of nations that don't. If we don't, we won't be alone. Period. I dislike, but see the importance of, having nuclear weapons.

Fuck science and everything it's brought us.

IPray "the unabomber" ForSound




i like this "middle name" thing and i shall appropriate it when appropriate. i also like how the word "appropriate" can be used in multiple ways.

[shivui]

i'm waiting for someone to stop playing the game and just drop the bombs. i'm finding it hard to convince myself that these efforts are for the good of the world and not just selfishly motivated.

what i want to know... how does one obtain their "you can have weapons" card. we as americans cannot expect everyone else in the world to not have destructive weapons if we can. what makes us so damn responsible? especially since we're the only ones who've dropped em anyway. wouldn't that be more of a reason for the american government not to have them? i don't know the figures and i don't the facts. i'm inquiring. how many people were killed on 9/11? how many people were killed in japan due to us dropping the bombs? you could make an argument that there isn't any war to justify 9/11, but i'm not so sure. i'm compromised by what i don't know. i am so very sure that i don't know jack about our policies in the middle east. and i'm quite sure of myself when i say i don't have any problem believing that there is probably an american media slant.

as far as i can tell, our reputation in war hints at us being the monster as so many extremists would like to say. i know that this comment doesn't consider the good that the US does and all the stuff. i just want to know what makes us soo damn good? why are americans better than everyone else on the planet? and if we're aren't, how can some people achieve some sort of equal judgement and others not? tell me who can have weapons and why, because i just don't understand. what's the justification?

don't call me liberal or conservative. i don't just belong to a country or race. i am a human being, interested in the well being of the world.

still waiting for africa to unite and control the universe.
-the polytical machine

[IPrayForSound]

This isn't really a response, more of an elaboration on what I've already said based on the last post.

I agree that our government (not just the current administration) could easily be viewed as one of the greatest threats to world peace. Hell, our government has proved that in one moment, they could kill over a hundred thousand civilians and ensure that another 200,000 would die from injuries or radiation in the next 5 years. Not nearly a Nazi-esque total, and I have no intention of making and equalizations or comparisons, but still....that's a shitload of bad fucking decisions.

However, the past...no matter how terrible...is the past. To get rid of our nukes now, at the height of known hatred and aggression against the U.S., would be foolish. I don't want to die just like I don't want some random 23-year-old dude on the other side of the planet to die. Basically, the reality of today is that we have to live in a constant (but often negligible) state of "what if" and "just in case".

[shivui]

it sounds like ring around the nukey, the self perpetuating weapons policy. our reasons for doing so are reacted to and cause more of the same reasons for doing so.

i guess i'd have to ask...
when do things change?
today is still tomorrow's yesterday. something has to change sometime.

[classicgrrl]

Originally posted by dcXhc
Britain, China, France, India, Iran(?), Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia -- All these countries only have nuclear weapons because the U.S. does?

um................................................ ..................................yes

[tobedawg]

it sounds like ring around the nukey,

That's classic!!

As Bowie once sang, "I'm Afraid of Americans. I'm Afraid of the World. I'm afraid I can't help it."

[Sovrana]

The development of nuclear weapons may have at one point (when many of you were tots) been a deterrent as a means of defense.

But not too many months ago Bush declared that the development of wmd's is a threat to world peace and successfully used it as a cause for a pre-emptive strike.

Based on his argument for striking Iraq, why would we not fear such a strike from other countries like Korea if we were to develop nukes?

we live in frightening times

[monkey neck]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound
Hell, our government has proved that in one moment, they could kill over a hundred thousand civilians and ensure that another 200,000 would die from injuries or radiation in the next 5 years. Not nearly a Nazi-esque total, and I have no intention of making and equalizations or comparisons, but still....that's a shitload of bad fucking decisions.

Dropping the bombs was the best decision we could've made. A land invasion of Japan would have cost more Japanese lives than the bombs, and a great deal of us, including me would not be here today, because our grandfathers would have been slaughtered. Let's remember that Japan was the aggressor. Their armies killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Chinese and Philippino civilians. Not a bad decision, in my book.

[IPrayForSound]

Dropping bombs was definately the answer. I'll never agree that dropping nuclear bombs was the best option, though. And you're right, there are bunches of people who wouldn't be here 'cause their ancestors wouldn't have come back to make it possible, but then again, any time there's a war, future grandchildren are lost, so I don't buy that argument as justification for the fact that we DID use weapons that should never have existed in the first place.

[monkey neck]

I don't have to read a book written by some bleeding-heart about how the great satan USA dropped A-bombs on innocent little Japan. It was to bring an end to the war, which it did. It was war. Kill or be killed.

Japan had an A-bomb program, too. Did you know that? Apparently, it wasn't as advanced as the USA, Germany, or Britian's programs, but we didn't know that. WWII was in itself a nuclear arms race.

Just curious, what do YOU think we should have done?

IP, the grandchildren argument is secondary (ok, tertiary:p) to the lives of the soldiers themselves. Many men's lives were spared. Why should the A-bomb never have existed, by the way?

[IPrayForSound]

Well, other than the fact that I'm pretty much against all war and killing, there's the environmental issues that arise from nuclear radiation, injuries and mutations that the ones who live may have to suffer through, and the sheer randomness of using a weapon designed to flatten everything. You argue that it was needed to end a war, but I'll still say that nuclear weapons were never needed. Wars had been ended for centuries before someone came up with an instant way to obliterate everything.

[monkey neck]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound
Wars had been ended for centuries before someone came up with an instant way to obliterate everything.

You're right, but as I said, victory would have come at a tremendous cost. War sucks, no doubt about it.

[solomon]

I used to be all for dropping the bombs on the japanese, but now logical consistency makes me oppose it.
What is our definition of terrorism? Basically, targeting civilians. You cannot target civilians. Period. It just seems completely immoral to me now. In my mind, you cannot say what osama bin laden did was "evil" and what we did in ww2 was right. Because it's the same thing.

Sol

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound
I'll still say that nuclear weapons were never needed. Wars had been ended for centuries before someone came up with an instant way to obliterate everything.

Once the knowledge was gained (i.e., once somebody comprehended the possibility of spliiting the atom to unleash massive amounts of energy), could the eventual development of a weapon have been stopped?

Should the U.S. have said "We're not going to develop it and we'll just hope nobody else does either?"

Regardless of how you answer those questions, or how you feel about the motivations for the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima, the fact remains that nuclear weapons exist in the world today. To say that they would not exist if AmeriKKKa would simply disarm itself, is patently foolish.

The lesson of the Cold War was that the best defense is a massive arsenal. Things are a little more complicated today, as it is no longer just NATO vs USSR, democracy vs. Communism, but rather, multiple entities pursuing multiple goals -- some regional, some defensive, some aggressive, some unknown.

Somebody has to keep a check on the development and proliferation of these weapons (does anyone disagree with that statement?). If not the U.S., then who? The regulatory agencies that have missed so much in the past and who have no enforcement powers? The U.N.? This is a sincere question.

To say that nuclear weapons are bad and that, ideally, nobody should have them, are true statements with which only extremists would disagree. But the technology and materials are available and nuclear weapons are a reality. I, for one, am not uncomfortable with the notion that the U.S. will take it upon itself to use force if necessary to check the spread of those weapons into the hands of those who may use them in dangerous ways.

Maybe that makes me a Neo-Con...

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by dcXhc
Once the knowledge was gained (i.e., once somebody comprehended the possibility of spliiting the atom to unleash massive amounts of energy), could the eventual development of a weapon have been stopped?

Should the U.S. have said "We're not going to develop it and we'll just hope nobody else does either?"

Regardless of how you answer those questions, or how you feel about the motivations for the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima, the fact remains that nuclear weapons exist in the world today. To say that they would not exist if AmeriKKKa would simply disarm itself, is patently foolish.
Originally posted by IPrayForSound
If we disarm, we'll be at the mercy of nations that don't. If we don't, we won't be alone. Period. I dislike, but see the importance of, having nuclear weapons.

[Danosaur]

I know the new Leftist mantra is to claim that the U.S. is the cause of all the bad in the world, but are you truly so naive as to believe that if the U.S. disarmed, everybody else would do likewise?

Huh? I suggested nothing of the sort. I'm saying we don't have the right to demand North Korea to disarm if we are designing new nukes.

Furthermore, if I were North Korea I would step up my work toward nuclear power upon hearing such news.

[Danosaur]

Somebody has to keep a check on the development and proliferation of these weapons (does anyone disagree with that statement?). If not the U.S., then who?

Who keeps a check on us, or are we just divinely good? You forget we are the superpower of the world. We have the real firepower, and when want something we can take it. You also forget that we are in more countries than any other military. We are a threat (whether a kind and peaceful nation or not) to the international community.

Point your finger at the U.N. all you want, but when we were spending the majority of our federal resources trying to stop the drug flow into this country terrorist were studying in our colleges. Our regulatory practices in the FBI prevented many of the warning signs from ever being seen. We are hardly the authority on good regulatory practices.

[monkey neck]

dang skippy.

By the way, I'm not scared of the information. I already know it. I just don't feel like reading history that is re-written by the left.

then again, your name is rightstarter.

[Danosaur]

I just don't feel like reading history that is re-written by the left.

The fact that the U.S. obliterated entire cities with nuclear bombs doesn't need a leftist slant. The U.S. killed hundreds of thousands of people and there is no excuse for it. Any sane person knows that the military is suppose to take any reasonable means necessary to avoid killing innocent civilians. Not only did we disregard this basic tenant of American warfare, we took it to a whole new extreme. Never before and never after have so many been killed in a moment’s time. Not to mention we would have never dropped nukes on our European enemies. I am not a lefty, but you don't have to be a leftist to see that, you just have to be a humanist.

[monkey neck]

Not to mention, Dan, that we had a CIVILIAN military at the time.
Hmmm. Makes you think, huh. Us or them. I pick them.

[monkey neck]

Originally posted by rightstarter

duWHATchalike, suckachump!

yer mama.

Just kidding. You can put a slant on Webster's dictionary if you want to.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Danosaur
Huh? I suggested nothing of the sort. I'm saying we don't have the right to demand North Korea to disarm if we are designing new nukes.

You said:

Originally posted by Danosaur
We're telling the rest of the world to unarm while we work on weapons that will blow 'em away.

Which is it, the rest of the world or North Korea?

Do you believe we should say "Please continue North Korea. Since we have nuclear weapons, so should you."

Considering North Korea has the largest standing army in proportion to its population, has directed all its resources into supplying and building up that military at the expense of its millions of civilians dying of starvation under a brutal authoritarian regime, has been a belligerent nation for 50+ years, has repeatedly broken non-development and non-proliferation agreements, has launched missiles over its neighbors territory and has said it's building nuclear missiles to target the U.S., there's nothing wrong with pressuring them to disarm. I suppose in some sort of relativist framework where every idea is considered of equal validity then North Korea and the U.S. are equals, but I can't imagine anyone actually saying that.

Originally posted by Danosaur
Furthermore, if I were North Korea I would step up my work toward nuclear power upon hearing such news.

So, are you saying that North Korea is only building nuclear weapons because the U.S. has them? Conversely, are you then arguing that if the U.S. disarmed (or simply didn't build anymore nuclear weapons), North Korea would dismantle its program?

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound
If we disarm, we'll be at the mercy of nations that don't. If we don't, we won't be alone. Period. I dislike, but see the importance of, having nuclear weapons.


Yeah, sorry. I wasn't so much refuting your post as I was using it as a springboard to lay out my thoughts on the issue. I should have made that clear.

[Danosaur]

Why do you keep suggesting an ulterior motive to what I have said? Just read the words. I haven’t called for the dismantling of our nuclear weapons, nor have I suggested other nations will dismantle theirs if we do. I am saying that researching further nuclear weapon designs would not be prudent at this time. We already have enough nuclear weapons to kill everyone on the planet more than a few times over.

So, a U.S. civilian military is the same in your eyes as a Japanese city filled with children? You are opening up a scary door when you say us or them. If that sort of rationalization is okay for the U.S. is it not okay for other countries to nuke the U.S. during war?

You are ceasing to see the big picture here. Yeah North Korea is a threatening evil power, but how we deal with them will affect the way the rest of the world views us for generations to come. We cannot allow ourselves to be perceived as the landlord of earth.

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by dcXhc
Yeah, sorry. I wasn't so much refuting your post as I was using it as a springboard to lay out my thoughts on the issue. I should have made that clear.
It's cool. I didn't take it as an attack, but I did feel that it couldn't hurt to restate my ultimate opinion in the matter.

[DudeMan]

Here's the deal: most of these piddly little countries signed the non-proliferation treaty, which gives them goodies like access to nuclear technology only to be used for peaceful purposes, and in return they don't develop nuclear weapons programs.

North Korea is ruled by a megolomaniacal asshole who is threatening his neighbors, starving his people and doing all sorts of bad things, and now either re-activating or has already re-activated his nuclear weapons program, in violation of the NPT and unilateral agreements with us. Understandably, we are concerned about this. Japan and S. Korea don't have nukes, but are likely to make them if the N. Korea situation isn't resolved.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons as a hedge against India and China, both of which it has border disputes with. India has nuclear weapons as a hedge against Pakistan and China, both of which it has border disputes with. Israel has nukes as a hedge against every country that surrounds it. Other than North Korea, which is either trying to blackmail ur or is just plain crazy, all of these other countries have very rational reasons to want to develop nuclear weapons.

The MAD doctrine kept the US and USSR from attacking each other and the world was relatively stable for 50 years. Like it or not, nuclear deterrence has proven to work. I don't care about India and Pakistan hedging against each other as much as I worry about terrorists or rogue states like N. Korea getting hold of them. That's the main reason I favor trying to keep the genie in the bottle for as long as possible.

As far as the US developing nuclear weapons that could have more tactical battlefield application, I am all in favor of it if the research indicates they can be useful. Even if we don't use them, putting the fear of god almighty into the heart of our enemies is a good thing.

Edited to add: Here (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1781213) is an article from last week's Economist that attempts to de-bunk my argument. Even though it doesn't convince me, they make some thoughtful points and I thought I'd share them.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Danosaur
So, a U.S. civilian military is the same in your eyes as a Japanese city filled with children? You are opening up a scary door when you say us or them. If that sort of rationalization is okay for the U.S. is it not okay for other countries to nuke the U.S. during war?


Someone else said that, not me.

Originally posted by Danosaur
Why do you keep suggesting an ulterior motive to what I have said? Just read the words. I haven’t called for the dismantling of our nuclear weapons, nor have I suggested other nations will dismantle theirs if we do. I am saying that researching further nuclear weapon designs would not be prudent at this time. We already have enough nuclear weapons to kill everyone on the planet more than a few times over.


If these new weapons had the effect of being more precise and controlled and hence, took measures to limit the civilian casualties experienced in Japan, wouldn't that make them better than the clunky indiscriminate ones?

North Korea (or anyone else) is smart enough to know that the U.S. isn't going to use a nuclear device due to the "collateral damage" it would cause. Hence, North Korea (or anyone else) knows that there is little the U.S. can do to stop them from building a bomb once the international community has run through all available diplomatic options (embargoes, sanctions, etc...). However, if the U.S. has nuclear weapons that could conceivably isolate the strategic targets such as chemical, biological or nuclear weapons manufacturing points, wouldn't that conceivably increase the odds that the U.S. would use them? Which, in turn would lead North Korea (or anyone else) to think a little harder about acquiring them.

For all we know, these new tactical weapons could be a bluff from the Office of Misinformation (or whatever that agency that existed and then didn't exist is called) intended to make North Korea (or anyone else) believe that we would be able to take out any program they started.

The one great thing about the Soviets was that they too were self-preservationists. MAD worked because neither the Soviets nor the Americans would go so far as to cause their own destruction. Could we say the same of the new nuclear powers? Given the whole phenomenon of suicide bombers, it appears that there are plenty of people who care less about their own lives than they do about inflicting damage on their enemies. The leaders of North Korea are already unnecessarily starving most of the country's population. Its not a stretch to say that they care little about the fate of their nation.

Moreover, if you are arguing that the U.S. building nuclear weapons leads to other nations building nuclear weapons, you must logically be saying that the U.S. not building nuclear weapons would lead to other countries not building nuclear weapons. Otherwise, you are saying that whether or not the U.S. builds nuclear weapons, other countries will still build nuclear weapons. So, I guess you are agreeing with me.

Originally posted by Danosaur
You are ceasing to see the big picture here. Yeah North Korea is a threatening evil power, but how we deal with them will affect the way the rest of the world views us for generations to come. We cannot allow ourselves to be perceived as the landlord of earth.

What is your suggestion for how to deal with North Korea?

[solomon]

What is your suggestion for how to deal with North Korea?

I think the Cato response seems pretty reasonable: Let the people most involved deal with it. In other words, tell NK that if they continue we will allow South Korea and Japan to start their own nuke programs, which I believe we currently have kept them from doing. They seem to be the ones most at risk from a nuclear North Korea.

Sol

[Danosaur]

Though I believe the Bush administration has taken the ideologically correct response with North Korea (that being to cut all relations with the Hitler of the east), I believe the sunshine policy had much more promise for lasting peaceful change. Not only that, but the sunshine policy was a collaboration of South Korean and American leadership. We have gone against the interest of our ally to make a statement to North Korea. I think North Korea would have had a hard time saying no to a sound economic infrastructure, and I believe we could have introduced free market economics to the North Koreans. But that is over now. North Korea has it's back up against the wall now, and that is a dangerous place to put your enemies. Building smart weapons and protecting ourselves is important, but how we go about it is just as important. We have been acting crass in our methods under the Bush administration (i.e. right now is not the time to ask for permission to research new nuclear technology).

North Korea (or anyone else) is smart enough to know that the U.S. isn't going to use a nuclear device due to the "collateral damage" it would cause.

Why wouldn’t we? We have done so before. You seem to suggest that we don't have to own up to that anymore. A significant terrorist attack and the American people might just allow the use of nuclear weapons. Crazier things have happened.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by DudeMan


North Korea is ruled by a megolomaniacal asshole who is threatening his neighbors, starving his people and doing all sorts of bad things, and now either re-activating or has already re-activated his nuclear weapons program, in violation of the NPT and unilateral agreements with us. Understandably, we are concerned about this. Japan and S. Korea don't have nukes, but are likely to make them if the N. Korea situation isn't resolved.



Isn't it eerie that if you replace "North Korea" with "The U.S" this will make an equally commanding point?

wow!!

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Danosaur
Though I believe the Bush administration has taken the ideologically correct response with North Korea (that being to cut all relations with the Hitler of the east), I believe the sunshine policy had much more promise for lasting peaceful change. Not only that, but the sunshine policy was a collaboration of South Korean and American leadership. We have gone against the interest of our ally to make a statement to North Korea. I think North Korea would have had a hard time saying no to a sound economic infrastructure, and I believe we could have introduced free market economics to the North Koreans. But that is over now. North Korea has it's back up against the wall now, and that is a dangerous place to put your enemies. Building smart weapons and protecting ourselves is important, but how we go about it is just as important. We have been acting crass in our methods under the Bush administration (i.e. right now is not the time to ask for permission to research new nuclear technology).

Bear in mind that prior to this crisis with North Korea we were assisting them with food, oil and the development of peaceful nuclear technology. All the while we were doing this, they were continuing with their nuclear program, not only in violation of accords they signed with the US, but also in violation of agreements with the IAEA and also right under the nose of the IAEA inspectors.

North Korea is wholly intractable. Kim Jong Il's only goal is to extract whatever is necessary to keep his regime in power. The only deal that North Korea has offered is that they receive more oil, more food, more energy assistance than before, and only when North Korea is satisfied (in several more years) will they discuss possible disarmament. In the interim, there will be no inspectors and no agreements. It is estimated that they can assemble 6-10 (or more) nuclear bombs a year. Is there any doubt that North Korea, which has sold missiles, small arms, counterfeit dollars, and drugs in the past, would gladly sell one of these bombs if the price was right? What's bin Laden's bank account looking like these days? Iran could certainly swap for oil. As could Libya.

The Sunshine policy made for some nice photo ops with reunited families, but made no substantive change for the North Korean people. Kim Jong Il has hown no desire to enter the modern world. He is an ideologue bent on the maintenance of an authoritarian communist nation, at any cost.

So should the US offer a package so sweet that North Korea can't refuse? Maybe. But what's to stop them from starting another program and blackmailing us again?

Originally posted by Danosaur
Why wouldn’t we? We have done so before. You seem to suggest that we don't have to own up to that anymore. A significant terrorist attack and the American people might just allow the use of nuclear weapons. Crazier things have happened.

Completely different scenario. We were in the 6th or 7th year of a world war. Japan was responsible for an estimated 3,000,000 civilian deaths in China (plus another 1,500,000 military deaths) and a fair portion of the estimated 10-15,000,000 civilian deaths in Russia. Plus, nobody else had an atomic bomb. I'm not saying that any of the above gave us the moral okay to drop the bomb, but tactically, we had everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Today, despite the US political unilateralism, we are dependent on the rest of the world for our maintenance. We need to continue to attract 75% of global capital to keep our financial markets chugging along. Not to mention our dependence on foreign oil. If the rest of the world was really against us -- and they would be if we used a nuclear weapon -- they could easily bring us to our knees merely by selling the 50% of all US treasury bonds they hold and the 25% of all US stocks they own.

[Danosaur]

You make some interesting points. Though I would suggest in the future you take this route to explaining yourself, you sound like much less of a nuke happy person. On the issue of the sunshine policy, I see your point, though I would not have expected a transformation to have occurred in North Korea for some time to come. I believe if Bush was willing to take this road he could have prevailed where Clinton did not. But as I understand it we are starting to talk to North Korea. So this may turn out more like I would have liked after all. The hawks in the Bush administration may haven shown North Korea that we mean business while Colin Powell and James Kelly may bring back a sunshine policy approach. I do like Mr. Powell.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Danosaur
You make some interesting points. Though I would suggest in the future you take this route to explaining yourself, you sound like much less of a nuke happy person.

Nukes suck. But unfortunately, they are a reality. In my opinion, a US with nuclear weapons is better than a US without nuclear weapons because whether we have them or not, other nations will have them.

As for North Korea, I still think in the end that diplomacy will win out. But the stick is as much of a bargaining tool as the carrot.

[Danosaur]

Carrots taste a lot better.

[lawdog]

Originally posted by Danosaur
Carrots taste a lot better.

I'm glad you feel that way. There are far too many philistines out there who simply use carrots as implements for shoving Ranch dressing into their gaping maws, and fail to ever stop and appreciate their sweet carroty goodness. You, Sir, are a true American!

-ld

Yeah, so I'm a little punchy today...

[Danosaur]

hahahahahaha

Smile

[shivui]

Originally posted by dcXhc
Once the knowledge was gained (i.e., once somebody comprehended the possibility of spliiting the atom to unleash massive amounts of energy), could the eventual development of a weapon have been stopped?
that kinda sounds like the rumours i hear about stopping the development of cars that run on water.

i don't care for the conflict. when the bombs hit the fan, i'll be the first one freezing my ass off in the yukon.

[Duemellon]

that kinda sounds like the rumours i hear about stopping the development of cars that run on water. but you're talking about development of something that doesn't allow for clear and utter dominion over others! What is the driving need for something like that? A greener world?

BAH!

Killing always comes before that.